What are the libertarian views on net neutrality?

what are the libertarian views on net neutrality?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
youtube.com/watch?v=rwJA3xWNHeE
youtu.be/B03eByZia5I
thinkaboutnow.com/2017/11/end-net-neutrality-good-liberty/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's a good thing, but it doesn't go far enough. 1st and 4th amendment should be applied to all US-based websites. Pic related.

Corporations have rights.
Don't tread on them.
If they want to make you pay extra for competitor websites that is the ISP's right.

>Corporations have rights.
Wrong. Individuals have right.

lol a true blue libertarian would hate NN, they'd rather the gov not get involved in anything other than emergency intervention.

Corporations are made up of the individual. Also the internet isn't a right and the ISP has the right to charge whatever the hell they want

Muh no true Scotsman fallacy. The government needs to protect a few essential freedoms. For instance, protecting freedom of speech could hardly be called a regulation. You don't have the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Furthermore, the issue with the current status quo as far as ISPs go is that there is already too much regulation in place (lobbied for by the likes of that pajeet) that no competition would arise from the lack of NN. They would simply coordinate with each other and since they have a regulation backed monopoly no mom n pops ISP would pop up.

A libertarian would be against net neutrality, and they'd also be against regulations and laws that stop multiple companies putting up wires and cables in an area.

(do anti-NN post, have to do the captcha 8 times, nothing sus there)

>implying I'm going to read something from a non-country.

They would have the right to change whatever they wanted (save for what was agreed upon at the time of signing the contract) if not for the massive regulatory measures they introduced through lobbying that have made it close to impossible to create your own ISP. Nevermind the fact the infrastructure is mostly tax funded.

Am I the only one who remembers congressmen and senators being bribed by Verizon and so on and LITERALLY reading their letters word for word to justify their anti net neutrality stance?

Not an argument. Portugal ruled the world alongside Spain and England. Need I post the belligerents list of Portugal Vs Angola, or would that embarrass you too much?

This. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't be anti net neutrality and for the massive body of regulations that allow those ISPs to have a monopoly.

>Wrong. Individuals have right.
>Corporations are made up of the individual.

Retarded argument

A set is not equal to its individual elements.

Disgusting.

The only thing worse has been the public's reaction to it. Anyone who has so much as questioned net "neutrality" (including 'Republicans') is instantly vilified. You'd think you were watching someone defending pedophilia with some of the reactions I've seen.

Why do you insist on harming the consumer?

He probably wasn't around when ISPs used to throttle the shit out of p2p.

>DWL
>Serious economics
Go read a book.

Fuck silicon valley and fuck the government

It's a very well established economic concept. You learn this in your first year of econ

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

>It's a very well established economic concept This statement means nothing.
youtube.com/watch?v=rwJA3xWNHeE
Watch this.

>I'm not smart enough to actually refute your point, so watch an hour long video of a rambling jewish economist who disagrees with 90% of established economics experts

...

>I'm lazy enough to study something new or learning another point of view even for the chance to prove myself right, so I post stupid anime girls.

explain it yourself jackass. If you listen to these lectures, you should know enough to explain it

If you can't explain it after hearing these lectures, it means the lectures are garbage

>le free market will fix it

>Also the internet isn't a right
+$0.50

who cares, libertarians and ancaps are retards

this is a coordinated effort but yes, less government is good.

absolutely haram. if you own the cable you decide what you send through it.

1) Analysis should start with individual preferences and proceed deductively from there and not from neat and tidy graph.
2) There is no long run equilibrium.
3) Economic value is subjective.
Hope this points will suffice or we can discuss cost curves.

Here's Weev on net neutrality.
youtu.be/B03eByZia5I

Considering libertarians are opposed to any kind of regulation, they would be opposed to net neutrality.

Nobody forces you to buy this stuff.

/thread

yes, and "gender is a social construct" is also well established. your appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

What is the FTC and consumer protections?

Explain how can a service be a 'right'? Are you in favour of slavery?

Why shouldn't ISPs throttle a network that distributes pirated material?

there are two types of regulations: the ones that form monopolies and the ones that protect against the abuse of monopolies.
the later one is fine as long as the former are in place. but you have to reduce the former.

thinkaboutnow.com/2017/11/end-net-neutrality-good-liberty/

...

Not to strawman you, but it sounds like you're saying
>fuck you, monopolies are fine

Why would a consumer be satisfied paying monopoly prices when they can get lower prices by running it as a utility (or contracting it out, and regulating the contractors)?

Yes, government is wasteful, inefficient, and often corrupt. But you will still get lower prices than being at the mercy of a private monopoly.

The free market works well when there is competition, but there isn't always competition. Sometimes it's more efficient just to have 1 single supplier. Mostly with public infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewer systems, electrical systems....etc).

That cartoon is a pretty good example of what happens when a private interest gets a hold of a public utility. This happens all over the place, it's one of the major reasons we needed to implement consumer protections and established rules of fair play.

the later one are only needed because someone put the former ones in place

>coca cola is forcing me at gun point to buy their shit

If you want to compete in the modern world, internet access is mandatory.

Why should people have access to power? Why are we forcing the power company to provide electricity to everyone? That's bullshit and unfair to the poor, downtrodden utility company!

>Why would a consumer be satisfied paying monopoly prices when they can get lower prices
wow it's almost as if a completely new opportunity for competition opened just right here. but nah, let's keep the monopoly and regulate it so it offers a shit service at a somewhat not too high price. who needs good service at low prices anyway!

>Corporations have rights.
Do they have a right to lay their cables beneath public roads and other public property? What if they public decides they don't like the ISP anymore and removes the cables?

The internet is so a right because it is a utility that was built with tax payer dollar. There shouldn't even be ISPs.

so instead of just 1 network of electrical wires, we're going to build 2 or 3 or 5....however many it takes to provide adequate competition?

Instead of just 1 network of water pipes, we'll have 5 in parallel? Instead of just 1 sewer system, we'll have 5 or more running concurrently?
This is obviously far less efficient in terms of resources, man hours....etc than simply having 1 single supplier, and running it as a utility.

Are you insinuating that electricity is a fundamental human right? Last I checked people have to pay their electricity bills.

There is a difference between 'real-time competition' and 'potential competition'. Thanks for the discussion, but I should go now. Highly recommend you to listen to that lecture in your spare time.

>so instead of just 1 network of electrical wires, we're going to build 2 or 3 or 5....however many it takes to provide adequate competition?
you mean like having telephone lines and tv cable lines in the ground? why won't the state do something and unify them!

Sorry. forgot to include

I'm saying that the power company can't whine that it costs too much to lay power lines to everyone's houses. It's too important that everyone have access to power. The same is true for internet access.

The keyword is access of course. If you want to be a luddite, you can do that. Maybe you're a farmer who doesn't give a shit. That's cool. But if you want to get netflix, talk to people all over the glove, or buy things online, you should have that option as well.

The logos of corporations in that pic have been chosen poorly but the point still stands.
American libertarians are fine with being fucked in the ass as long it's the corporations that do it.

you can't efficiently send a TV signal on the same line as your phone traffic, these are separate infrastructure.

It's quite a different thing to have multiple different competing networks of high voltage electrical wires filling the ground and sky. If you just stop and think about it, you will realize that it's more efficient in terms of resources, maintenance, and work to simply have 1 network.

Ultra high capital cost, super high maintenance cost. All kinds of 3rd party costs involved in terms of obstructing views, endangering people, fighting cutting down trees.....etc. It's so obvious that this needs to be run from the public sphere, it's laughable that anyone could say otherwise. It's not like having 10 different brands of bread on the store shelf to choose from, not even the same universe

Your alternative is Kowloon City

>so instead of just 1 network of electrical wires, we're going to build 2 or 3 or 5....however many it takes to provide adequate competition?
That's not how it works moron. Different power companies use the same power lines to service homes. It's the power stations/plants that are different. Wireless companies all use the same cell towers. It's their satellite system that is different.

Competing ISPs would use the same wires, they would just lead to different storage/bandwidth/server/whatever the fuck facilities.

Another dunce who thinks each network needs it own wires. See

>Different power companies use the same power lines to service homes
isn't this exactly the point?

In this case the infrastructure is owned by the public, who bid it out to corporations. This is how a public utility works.
You are making my argument for me.

But the reason that there is such little competition between ISP's is because they are owning the networks. In fact one of the arguments they are using to justify ending Net Neutrality is that their increased profit motive will allow them to build networks out to under-serviced rural areas.

>you can't efficiently send a TV signal on the same line as your phone traffic
Can you even fibre optic?
baka usa

ancap is the goto political philosophy of burnt out porn stars, former convicts, and addicts

consider this before you decide to waste your time on arguing with them

and as long as they former ones are in place you need the later, get rid of the former, and eventually you can get rid of the later

Power companies won't complain about the cost of power lines because they often don't foot the bill, the government gives out grants. Internet companies are the same. In fact that's why it's so difficult for ISP start-ups to actually go anywhere, because the FCC only gives out grants to Comcast and other giants. The fact that the government is so selectively giving out money is a big reason why many areas in the country don't have choice in ISP.

You think p2p is strictly for pirating? And you actually care about the distribution of copies? I thought you were for the free market. Anyway, p2p is a widely used protocol for most messaging programs (eg tox or certain Skype features), games and so on. Most Linux distros rely on the torrent protocol to distribute their isos, for instance. Stop being a fucking cuck. This is like hiring 5kW and then having to pay more because your radiator is using 3kW 24/7 and the company oversold its energy so you have to pay more or you can't use 3kWh at once. Fucking cuck wants to buy bandwidth and have his ISP dictate which sites get throttled (don't benefit from the full bandwidth).

I agree with you that the FCC should tell Comcast to go fuck themselves. But competition from laying redundant lines is still more wasteful than government overhead. Plus if you allow them to, ISP's will refuse to lay lines to extremely remote areas due to the cost. This happened all the time in the early 1900's with electricity; only cities had power. Effective regulation and coop grants meant every farm and house in the country got access to power. I don't see why the same process couldn't be replicated for good, high speed internet access.

It depends really, in many cases there is no free market when choosing Internet providers given that some areas are limited to 2 or even 1 provider meaning there is no basis or space for competition and the free market to work.

You're not MAKING an argument. You're just repeating dumb memes you think make sense because you don't know what the hell you are talking about or how things work.

It's going to work the same way electric companies compete for business in certain states where there isn't a monopoly.
I.E. Con Edison sells access to the power lines to the competition. They save money by not having to produce more power because it double exponentially the more they create, while making money from their competition.
Some small time power company offers the consumer a cheaper rate because they have less overhead (not as many VPs, executives, and old timers on their payroll), while some others offer contracts that increase the rates over time to unsuspecting consumers or because eventually the demand on power increases.

It creates more jobs, thus more tax revenue, because now you have multiple companies providing a service instead of one.

>But competition from laying redundant lines is still more wasteful than government overhead.
No one is laying down extra lines retard. Stop this stupid meme.

People always assume libertarian means some complete anarchy bullshit or laissez faire capitalism.

NN is essentially libertarian. If you want to shitpost on Sup Forums, jerkoff to hentai, watch normie shit on Nflix, or larp as a nazi you can without being choked/blocked by a virtue signalling big brother corporation.

This is largely caused by government intervention though.

yes, multiple companies are providing a service, but the infrastructure is owned by the public

Just like, there are multiple different competing hotdog stands in the park, but the park itself is owned by the public

>Government enforcement of equality is libertarian

A libertarian doesn't have the freedom to limit another individual's freedom, you imbecile.

Exactly.
You don't have the right to limit the freedom of a corporation to set their own prices.

A corporation is a represenation of a collective group of people. It is not an individual and interpreting it as such is retarded and really reaching to make a point.

Believing that corporations should have the right to control what we can see and at what speed is about as close as you can get to supporting a big brother state.

The market will fix it and they are right.

Net neutrality is a band-aid for the telecom oligopoly in the USA.

Except that you're the one saying the government should have that ability.

You can choose your ISP. You can't choose your government.

You can't oppose nn UNTIL you have repelled the regulations that make monopolies possible that were lobbied for by isp lawyers like the pajeet in chief.

The ISP is the company that owns the (let's say) fiber optic cable from your house to the rest of the internet (the last mile). There's only 1 line there. You have three options now. Regulate them, create competition, or allow them to abuse their monopoly. Since laying spare lines is obviously idiotic, there's no "competition" to be created. So pick your poison.

You can move.

I agree that we should also remove those regulations.
If we were talking about removing those, you'd probably say we need to get rid of NN first.
It's all about taking steps.

Why don't you move?

do you think owning stocks is a violation of the NAP?

No, that would be retarded.

So you allow the ISPs that rely on tax funded infrastructure to become tyrants first, and only then deregulate the market. Sweet. Nevermind the fact the already ultra rich ISPs would probably be able to operate at a loss to kill potential challengers. This wouldn't be feasible for a large enough number of mom n pops ISPs but it's still a highly specialised business.

so if people can collectively own a company, why can't people collectively own telephone lines? Or fiberoptic networks?

Even the last miles were, for the most part, tax funded.

It's pretty simple, always do the opposite of what the jews say, and the jews are saying NN

NN actually contributes to the creation of monopolies.

I posted a nice little article earlier in the thread if you're interested.
thinkaboutnow.com/2017/11/end-net-neutrality-good-liberty/

They can, you fuckwit.
Collective ownership is not government ownership.

>Collective ownership is not government ownership.
yes it is.

If all people in the town are stuck with the same water supplier, everyone must collectively agree. They will need representatives to carry out their collective interest and sign a collective contract that represents all of them.

If this is sounding suspiciously like a city council, that's because it is

Okay, then I'd like to sell my share in the internet infrastructure.
Oh wait, I can't?

You don't own shit. The government owns it.
The government owns you.

if you are living in the town, you are stuck with the same supplier as everyone else. Sorry

if you want a different supplier, you have to move

Literally the only reason I'm suspicious of it is because it's backed by Soros.

Your overly generalist article makes no sense. Like I said, you need to remove existing regulation first before removing NN, or you'll simply be giving the few ISPs there are monopolies of their respective markets. No other companies will have the entry vc required to enter the ISP market. Many more counterarguments can be made in regards to your article, but the biggest one is that ISPs gladly took a shit ton of tax money to renovate their infrastructure.

Why am I stuck with the same supplier?
I can get wireless from someone else.
I can install water tanks.

The only thing stopping me is the government pointing a gun to my head.

Just take a step back and think about your argument.

You're saying that more regulations is better than fewer, because the regulations stop each other.

Is that really what you think?
Do you have a fucking gantt chart of which regulations need to be removed when?

yes, you can do all these costly unnecessary, super expensive workaround methods. But nobody does it except people with too much money and too much time on their hands

>Nobody does it
Because you have to pay for it whether you're using it or not.
Hence why I said I'd like to sell my share. I'll take the money gained from selling it and the reduction in taxes to pay for something better.

Why are you so afraid of me having this choice?

Please explain to me how I own any of the shit which you're claiming I do.

As long as the government is acting in good faith, that's fine. Of course obviously sometimes it doesn't, but that's what voting is for. And in any case, the alternative is likely that you wouldn't have any internet connection at all. Unless you laid it yourself, which let's be real, no you fucking wouldn't.

You're putting words in my mouth. Net neutrality is akin to free speech. It's forbidding censorship and other arbitrary decisions by ISPs. Are you implying it's bad to not have the freedom to limit other people's freedom? Regardless, I said other regulations need to be removed FIRST if you want this shit to not be a fucking fiasco. Hope you realise you'll be giving ISPs the ability to essentially Shadow ban certain IPs that lead to specific sites. The only good thing that will come out of this is more resilient web protocols that can't be tampered with, like improved DNS sluice cryptography alla dnscrypt, protocols that are constantly streaming packets to foil metadata collection and that are both end to end encrypted and decentralised or only pseudo centralised.

Except that you can already get wireless internet from small startups even with the government trying to shut them down.
Why can't I use 4G, or even 5G? My country's spending billions of dollars upgrading our internet infrastructure, and 5G will already be faster than it. That's not even considering the fact that they've actively banned several companies who were trying to lay their own fibre networks because they don't like competition.

>Net neutrality is free speech
>We need the government to force everybody to get exactly the same airtime regardless of who we want to listen to

All of these evil ISPs want to ban you from looking at certain sites.
So why do they all support net neutrality?
I bet you didn't even read a single page of that article I linked.

>Because you have to pay for it whether you're using it or not
No, water and power are metered. Trash pickup as well. Most public utilities are metered.

There are some things that you must pay for, such as environmental protections. But this is because these benefit the entire community equally, regardless of their usage. Everyone benefits from nice views, clean air and water....etc. People also benefit from not having crazy homeless people on every street corner begging for change

Are you seriously that fucking dense that you think none of your taxes pay for that stuff?

Socialists don't belong on this board.

>ISPs support net neutrality
Is this a joke? And yes, we need government enforced free speech to prevent ISPs from throttling 4chins or routing it to www.blacked.com and this should expand to nameservers you retard nigger.